[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor

[Erik]

Thank you Jeff. We do not have millions of registered Greens in California
like the Democrats and Republicans. We don’t even have as many registered
as the Libertarians. Yet we have 69 elected local level candidates in
comparison to Libertarians 14.

What does that say? That people want Greens but we aren’t telling them who
to vote for and we aren’t doing outreach on the state level. We are
expecting them to stumble onto Green Candidates on their own and forcing
the candidates to do all their own outreach and fundraising. This is not a
recipe for success and we have years of proof to show us that.

We have to do more than just endorse candidates... we have to actively
campaign, fundraise and provide support for their campaigns via campaign
managers, treasurers, street teams,  websites, etc. Do it yourself
statewide candidacies produce the kind of results you’d expect. Maybe 1-2%.

This endorsement process allows us to endorse every candidate if we so
choose(which I disagree with there should only be one). It allows us to
refuse endorsements for people who run on our ballot that don’t follow our
10 Key Values(Nazis/Corporate Candidates), it allows us to then promote,
fundraise and outreach for candidates which is so badly needed and should
have been happening 2 months ago and that’s why this proposal exists.
Because we need it for the future as much or more than we need it for 2018

The only reason I can see to oppose this amendment is either clinging to
ideology that the system doesn’t support and we can’t do anything about...
or if a candidate or their supporters were afraid that their candidate may
not have enough support from the party to garner an endorsement.

Vote yes on this new endorsement process.

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:23 AM Jeff Lebow <jlebow at socal.rr.com> wrote:

> Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support
> candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the
> strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and
> social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not
> garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create
> a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green
> candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having
> any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
>
> We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party
> from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political
> suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for
> candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in
> office ever.
>
> Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics
> seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus
> our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This
> endorsement process is long overdue.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters
>> hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to
>> much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to
>> mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
>>
>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time
>>> to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc at sfgreens.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through
>>>> with
>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a
>>>> process it
>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access
>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and
>>>> division,
>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot?  If
>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in
>>>> and who is out.  I agree that we should not make an endorsement before
>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about
>>>> all the Green candidates running.
>>>>
>>>> JMC
>>>> --
>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc at sfgreens.org)
>>>> http://sfgreens.org/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>
>>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>
> --
>
> *Erik Rydberg *
>
> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
>
>
> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>530-781-2903*
>
>                 cagreens.org
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
-- 

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*


*erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>530-781-2903*

                cagreens.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180217/46e93b7c/attachment.html>